Santosh Vimleshkumar Mehta v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle 8(3) & Ors

SANTOSHSUBHASHKULKARNIDigitally signed bySANTOSH SUBHASHKULKARNIDate: 2022.02.2510:39:25 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3580 OF 2019 Santosh Vimleshkumar Mehta ...Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 8(3) & ors. ...Respondents Mr. Devendra Jain, a/w Ms. Radha Halbe, for the Petitioner.Mr. Sham Walve, for the Respondent – Revenue. CORAM:K. R. SHRIRAM &N. J. JAMADAR, JJDATED:22[nd ]FEBRUARY, 2022 -ORDER: 1.Petitioner has impugned a notice dated 28[th] March 2019issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”)on various grounds. The primary ground is that the notice hasbeen issued without jurisdiction and is invalid because thenotice has been issued without application of mind and thereasons recorded are also without application of mind becausethe respondent proposes to reopen assessment for AssessmentYear 2012 – 2013, but in the reasons the information ismentioned to be relating to Assessment Year 2011-2012.Petitioner also states that with such glaring errors in thereasons if an approval has been granted under Section 151 ofthe Act, the approval also has been without application of mind. On these grounds alone, according to Mr. Jain, the noticeissued under Section 148 of the Act has to be quashed and setaside and consequently the order dated 27[th] November, 2019rejecting petitioner’s objection also be quashed and set aside. 2.We have considered the reasons and, yes, there is atypographical error. It has also been so explained in theaffidavit-in-reply filed opposing the petition. Instead of F.Y. 2011-12 it is mentioned A.Y. 2011-12. One alphabet has beenchanged, i.e., instead of “F” alphabet “A” has been shown in thereason. Other than that, we find nothing wrong in the reasonsrecorded. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,we would also observe that Section 292B of the Act would cometo the rescue of respondent, where it says that no action shall beinvalid merely by reason of any mistake. We are satisfied that itis nothing but just a typographical error. 3.Moreover, we find that the income disclosed as per thereasons is only Rs.4,64,069/-, whereas, petitioner has traded inscrip for Rs.4,20,67,265/-. Even the bills for the statement forthe scrip traded has been annexed to the petition and thevolumes are pretty large, for someone who has income of onlyRs.4,64,069/-. 4.Mr. Jain has raised various other objections which have not been dealt with in detail in the impugned order, whichtherefore is set aside. Petitioner may explain all the factors to therespondents, who shall consider all submissions and pass anorder in accordance with law. 5.The matter is remanded to the concerned AssessingOfficer, who shall consider the submissions made by petitionerand after granting a personal hearing to petitioner pass a freshorder disposing the objections within a period of six weeks fromthe date this order is uploaded. The notice of personal hearingshall be given at least seven days in advance. If the Assessing Officer is going to rely on anyjudgments/orders of any Court or Tribunal to pass an orderdisposing the objection, he shall provide a list thereof topetitioner along with the personal hearing notice, so thatpetitioner’s representative may deal with or distinguish it duringthe personal hearing. The Assessing Officer shall thereafterpass detailed and reasoned order dealing with every point ofobjections raised by petitioner. 6.Petition stands disposed with no order as to costs. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] [K. R. SHRIRAM, J.]